A paper to be published today in the American Journal of Sociology is certain to heat up the global warming debate with strong evidence that people who are critical of An Inconvenient Truth (AIT) are smarter than people who claimed to like it.
The paper was authored by Dr. Sydney S. Guderian of the Department of Climatology of University of California-Sunnydale and Dr. Penelope W. Krusinski of the Department of Sociology and Mathematical Agronomic-Hydrology of the University of Kiev.
The research design of the paper was simple, elegant, and ingenious. The authors analyzed all 337 reviews of AIT as posted at Amazon.com. Guderian and Krusinski considered a posting anti- if it gave AIT one or two stars; a posting neutral if gave AIT three stars ( A null set as it turned out.); and, a posting pro- if it gave AIT four or five stars. In analyzing their data, Guderian and Krusinski discovered that the anti-AIT postings were three times as long as the pro-AIT postings; had 1/20th the grammatical and spelling errors of the pro-AIT postings; and, used seven times as many words longer than five letters than the pro-AIT postings.
Additionally as, Dr. Guderian observed in a phone call to us, there also were the subjective factors. "In reading the postings we (Penelope and I) were struck by one inescapable fact: the pro-AIT reviewers had not bothered to read the book. It was obvious that the anti-AIT postings were written by someone who had read the book, but we had very little data to prove that writers of the pro-AIT postings had done the same. Almost all of the pro-AIT postings were nasty, ad hominum, incoherent diatribes that accused their opponents of creationism, flat-earthism, and being on the payroll of Exxon--everything except discussing AIT. One posting actually wrote: "I give it five stars. I haven't read the book yet, but I gave it to my sister and she liked it.' "